Tweet
McVeigh.
Edit: I should add I put absolutley no thought into who would be the best to play St Kilda.
Edit: I should add I put absolutley no thought into who would be the best to play St Kilda.
-
Last edited by stellation; 6 September 2004, 08:45 PM.I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time -
Mcveigh, unless Fosdike is fit enough (this could have almost been a poll question).Comment
-
Agree!!Originally posted by Nico
We don't need Fosdike's penchant for stuffing things up, when the rest of the team's disposal is the best it has been all season.
It seems that he has been the weakest link in terms of his clangers...
NWBLOODS stats pls!
Comment
-
Yep. Dare I say it-TRADE HIM!!!Originally posted by Diego
Agree!!
It seems that he has been the weakest link in terms of his clangers...
NWBLOODS stats pls!
Comment
-
Thats the spirit!Originally posted by Jimmy C
Yep. Dare I say it-TRADE HIM!!!
Comment
-
I don't regard clangers as a useful stat by itself. I note that Brisbane has the third-most handling errors in the competition. They make mistakes but they more than compensate with good play. Would you rather have a player who gets 20 possessions, has 4 clangers but is dynamic and dangerous with the other 16 possessions, or a player who has 20 possessions who makes no clangers but most of them are safe short kicks or handballs (this is like comparing P Williams to J Bolton).Originally posted by Diego
Agree!!
It seems that he has been the weakest link in terms of his clangers...
NWBLOODS stats pls!
Anyway, for information, in terms of disposals/clangers (so high is good), we have:
McVeigh 15.9
Mathews 14.2
Barry 10.8
Williams 9.3
Nicks 9.0
Schauble 9.0
J Bolton 8.7
C Bolton 8.2
Kirk 8.2
Maxfield 8.1
Kennelly 8.0
Crouch 7.9
O'Keefe 7.5
Fosdike 7.0
Davis 6.9
Schneider 6.8
Ablett 6.6
Buchanan 5.9
Bevan 5.2
Ball 5.7
Hall 4.7
Doyle 3.2Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."Comment
-
I am very surprised that Mathews ranks so highly in that category. Goes to show how under-rated of a player he is. He has had a good season IMO and will go close to the B&FComment
-
what he saidOriginally posted by Charlie
All we are sayyyinnnggg.....C'mon Chels!Comment
-
Can only think that with a BOG in the reserves and Roosy's statement that he is in our best 22, that Fossy will get the call up.Red and white till I dieComment
-
For the MCG expansiveness, you'd have to go with a midfielder in McVeigh.
Fosdike needs to stay in the 2nds.
and Nick Davis, now that its not a break, would be better with a week off to be ready for Port.Comment
-
OUT: Davis
IN: Warfe
HmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmBring back G Bennett !Comment
-
He was finals experience!!!!Originally posted by Hitman44
OUT: Davis
IN: Warfe
HmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmComment
-
This table is less informative than it could be because it only includes disposals. It would be more meaningful if it included such stuff as hitouts, tackles and the like.Originally posted by NMWBloods
Anyway, for information, in terms of disposals/clangers (so high is good), we have:
McVeigh 15.9
Mathews 14.2
Barry 10.8
Williams 9.3
Nicks 9.0
Schauble 9.0
J Bolton 8.7
C Bolton 8.2
Kirk 8.2
Maxfield 8.1
Kennelly 8.0
Crouch 7.9
O'Keefe 7.5
Fosdike 7.0
Davis 6.9
Schneider 6.8
Ablett 6.6
Buchanan 5.9
Bevan 5.2
Ball 5.7
Hall 4.7
Doyle 3.2
And what exactly is a clanger anyway?"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi finalComment
-
I've changed my mind.Originally posted by barry
For the MCG expansiveness, you'd have to go with a midfielder in McVeigh.
Fosdike needs to stay in the 2nds.
and Nick Davis, now that its not a break, would be better with a week off to be ready for Port.
Bring back James to play in Defence, and let Nicks move back to the forward line to replace Davis.Comment
-
I think it is a disposal that goes straight to the opposition... I thinkOriginally posted by Thunder Shaker
This table is less informative than it could be because it only includes disposals.
And what exactly is a clanger anyway?Comment
Comment